/m/tigers

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

I'm still waiting for one of these mega deals for guys 30 and over to work out well enough to prove to me that I don't understand value as well as the GM's signing these deals on behalf of their teams.

That's a hell of a lot of money, and yeah -- not one of these deals (at least for the 30+ set) looks like they're a good idea... but man, Miggy can rake. He's chunky, he drinks, etc... but he can sure rake.

I'm still waiting for one of these mega deals for guys 30 and over to work out well enough to prove to me that I don't understand value as well as the GM's signing these deals on behalf of their teams.

Like the Cano deal, it's a contract that will almost certainly hurt the team in the second half of it, but letting him go as a free agent would probably cripple the team in the short-term. The Yankees decided that they didn't want to take that risk, and it's really iffy as to whether or not they made the right choice - but for them the calculus is different because they want to be a contender now *and* 10 years from now, and figure to have the budget to do that. The Tigers' budget is more like almost everyone else's, where there's going to be a "success cycle", so there's a decent chance that 10 years from now they'd be on the down end of that anyway, and paying more then to get a good shot at a ring in the next few years is probably *more* worth it than it would have been for the Yankees.

So, in summation, I'm more or less okay with this deal, especially if the Tigers *do* win the World Series in the next few years.

My immediate reaction is that this is undoubtedly the stupidest deal a GM in any sport has ever signed. I may be wrong of course, but it certainly has that potential. Miggy is a great hitter, no question, but he still has two years remaining on a deal that pays him $22M annually. He is also turning 31 in three weeks, and will be 33 in the first year of this deal.

The deal is financially and competitively dumb, but as a Tiger's fan, I'm glad Cabrera will likely retire as a Tiger. I'm sure a lot of Tiger fans feel the same way, which is probably one of the reasons they did this.

The deal is financially and competitively dumb, but as a Tiger's fan, I'm glad Cabrera will likely retire as a Tiger. I'm sure a lot of Tiger fans feel the same way, which is probably one of the reasons they did this.

I completely see this argument. The counter is that fans are ####### fickle assholes and will turn on Miggy if he becomes a perceived albatross. It's an old, old story.

I...I...cannot dispute this. But hey, maybe Cabrera will have a Big Papi tiwlight. I mean, he can't get LESS mobile than he was last year.

I hope it works out for all involved. It's no fun when a beloved icon has to have one of those messy divorces from a team requiring few years of separation before the nostalgia can heal the wounds. Plus, if Miggy can keep from becoming an anchor it will mean he is putting up some massive career numbers which baseball geeks like myself can't help but love.

"According to CBSSports.com, which earlier reported Detroit and Cabrera were closing in on an agreement, the new deal also includes two additional vesting options worth $30 million apiece for years 11 and 12 that could bring the total of the deal to $352 million."

This is probably the latest in the long line of "worst deals ever" (from a GM's perspective). Interestingly enough, most of the coverage indicates that rival execs have no issue at all with the AAV of the deal; all of them, understandably, think the timing, total value and length of the deal is absurd.

The statuses this off-season of Cabrera, Beltran, and even Joaquin Benoit show us that the teams would have been better off having their last contract be longer, not even counting the probable resulting AAV savings.

If Trout remains anything close to what he's been the last two years--that is to say, if he hits free agency as an established 8-win-a-year player--if he were to hire Scott Boras, Boras would ask for a $1 billion contract with a straight face. And get more than half of that.

This is definitely going to be one of those days where we won't be hearing too much from the classic dopes who like to whine that the greedy owners are still screwing the players over.

Yeah 'cause that is like the most common ever post in your head - which matters I guess.

Back in reality:
* The owners do screw over players when they are chattel before free agency.
* Some lucky players get to screw over the owners in deals like this.
* Both sides however are wealthy enough that it is hard to feel too sorry for them, though since the players are the talent I favor them, especially since the owners also screw over the public with the generally ridiculous Stadium/Blackmail efforts.

Basically it is a business, and on the business side everyone is looking out for #1. When one side treats it like a business does not make the other side suddenly have the halo of "good".

Perhaps it's best to think of such contracts as essentially $60M a year for four years, with a bunch of money deferred. That sounds hilariously lunatic, but ballclubs aren't going broke doing it. They aren't even falling out of contention doing it, because most of the contenders are making similar decisions.

Perhaps it's best to think of such contracts as essentially $60M a year for four years, with a bunch of money deferred.

That's exactly what they are. Well, I'd say more like $40M a year for six years, but... that's what they are.

The problem with Pujols' contract is that he steeply declined immediately after signing it. If the Tigers can get even three years of MIGGY production and three years of still-pretty-good decline (or MIGGY production for only 110 games a year, like the Braves got for most of the second half of Chipper Jones' career) this contract will turn out all right for them.

But the specific problem here is that Cabrera does not take care of himself at all, and is a much greater risk of rapid decline than even Pujols or A-Rod were.

My immediate reaction is that this is undoubtedly the stupidest deal a GM in any sport has ever signed.

Nope. I think the worst deal ever signed in any sport is still the NY Islanders/DiPietro deal:

On September 12, 2006, DiPietro signed a 15-year, $67.5 million contract with the Islanders, topping former teammate Alexei Yashin's contract signed before the start of the 2001–02 season of 10 years.

He'd played a total of 143 regular season games in his career before that deal, and had 58 wins (and 1 playoff win).
He had won zero awards, was never an all-star before then, wasn't in the top 10 in any stat before signing that contract.
The dollar amount doesn't seem that big, but he was the 2nd highest paid player on the team, 8th highest paid goalie in the league, and 44th overall in salary that year (2006-07).

Everyone knew that it was too long and too much on what was a middling goalie at best.

Michael Lewis should write a sequel to Moneyball called "WARgames: the only way to win is not to play" about the futility of these long term deals.

Maybe even get Broderick to play Mozeliak in the film adaptation. Aaron Eckhart as Scott Boras is a no brainer. Giancarlo Esposito could play Rubén Amaro Jr. Pitt can return as Beane. Bob Odenkirk can play somebody prominent.

I'd love to see Cabrera turn around and sling $10 or $20 million into some sort of pension fund for career minor leaguers (and challenge ownership to match it).
There are non-rich guys getting beaten up by the winner-takes-all system as it exists. At this level of obscene wealth, it doesn't really cost the winners much to help out those who who get abused by the system.

I can't believe I'm stooping to this, but stop digging your own hole Joey. Were there any rational thought processes running in your mind when you chose to use one of the most hyped prospects of all time, who had landed one of the largest signing bonuses of all time, as your example of "players before free agency"?

In your mind, exactly how much money should the typical first year player taken in the middle rounds of the draft be making? Just how high do the minimum and average MLB contracts need to be before guys like you stop whining? This ought to be good.

Probably the same as the previous generation of ballplayers...lose it all?

Cliff Robinson was on Survivor this season, so of course I had to look up his financial situation......$62 million in career salary, yet declared bankruptcy in 2009 with a net worth of negative $5.3 million.

In your mind, exactly how much money should the typical first year player taken in the middle rounds of the draft be making?

Market rate for their services outside of a draft system designed by management and a player's union that doesn't represent them specifically to pay them less than those market rates? You know, capitalism? Freedoms and why the terrorists hate us and stuff. Is it really so hard to think "man, ball players should get paid for what their work is worth?"

Market rate for their services outside of a draft system designed by management and a player's union that doesn't represent them specifically to pay them less than those market rates? You know, capitalism? Freedoms and why the terrorists hate us and stuff. Is it really so hard to think "man, ball players should get paid for what their work is worth?"

A wordy dodge, which roughly translates to "I'd rather just keep whining than ever answer this question."

+I have often wondered what this generation of ballplayers will do with all their crazy money once they retire.+

A-Rod's going to spend it all on legal fees.

Maybe Pujols and/or Cabrera could put together a group to buy the Oakland A's and run the team like the SF Bay area can support two frontline franchises. (why don't teams give ownership stakes in lieu of salary? Is it prohibited, or is ownership prospering so much that these guys are really not overpaid?)

In your mind, exactly how much money should the typical first year player taken in the middle rounds of the draft be making? Just how high do the minimum and average MLB contracts need to be before guys like you stop whining? This ought to be good.

Who said I was talking about MLB contracts?
The vast majority of players that are drafted by MLB never play a game in the majors, so they don't get "minimum" MLB contracts (never mind "average"). They are still subjected to the inability to earn more money because of the system currently in place. They are stuck with the team that drafted them (and the minor league salary forced upon them) for seven years.

And what do you mean by "first year player taken in the middle rounds"?
Has any player drafted in the "middle rounds" ever played in the majors in their first year?

I have often wondered what this generation of ballplayers will do with all their crazy money once they retire.

Probably the same as the previous generation of ballplayers...lose it all?

Beat me to it. They will probably just find more creative ways to do it (i.e. start your own video game company and lose a bunch of the state's money in the process).

That said, a star player who invested wisely could become more wealthy than some team owners, and could easily become part of an ownership group if he wanted to after retirement. We saw Jordan do that in basketball.

Maybe Pujols and/or Cabrera could put together a group to buy the Oakland A's and run the team like the SF Bay area can support two frontline franchises. (why don't teams give ownership stakes in lieu of salary? Is it prohibited, or is ownership prospering so much that these guys are really not overpaid?)

(why don't teams give ownership stakes in lieu of salary? Is it prohibited, or is ownership prospering so much that these guys are really not overpaid?)

It is prohibited, but I think the second part of your statement is also true. Teams have enough money to pay their players in cash, and the ones that don't probably can't afford to give up the equity either.

Plus, what happens to that ownership stake when a player gets traded or signs with a new team?

strasburg was the very last draftee to get a decent contract. the number 1 and 2 picks get a reasonable bonus, but after that, almost no one gets much of anything.

would you care to explain what percent of incoming money should go to the actual players?

would you care to explain why you think it is wonderful that younger minor leaguers have to live like refugees crammed in a small room and not have enough food to eat? the rookie league guys/low A ball guys are eligible for food stamps and mediciad in a lot of places.

It is prohibited, but I think the second part of your statement is also true. Teams have enough money to pay their players in cash, and the ones that don't probably can't afford to give up the equity either.

would you care to explain why you think it is wonderful that younger minor leaguers have to live like refugees crammed in a small room and not have enough food to eat? the rookie league guys/low A ball guys are eligible for food stamps and mediciad in a lot of places.

So if you think that the MLBPA ought to be open to minor leaguers as well, go ##### to Tony Clark and the MLBPA about it.

So...serious question. What do you ask for if you are repping Mike Trout?

On the assumption that he continues to battle Miggy for MVP honors (or whoever replaces Miggy in the other-than-Mike-Trout MVP camp)? 40 mil per for 10-12 years, or 45 mil per for 7 years. Anything less than 7 years is 50 per.

So...serious question. What do you ask for if you are repping Mike Trout?

You mean for an extension now, or when he hits free agency if he maintains something close to his current level the next three years?

If it's the latter, my opening demand is 20 years, $1 billion, and point out that

(a) Trout's remaining career is going to be worth over 100 wins,
(b) $50 million a year is a bargain for his prime, which you're getting several years of,
(c) each win is worth millions of dollars and the cost per win is only going to increase over the next 20 years;
(d) that's only considering his on-field performance; his superstar power is worth a lot more than that for marketing;
(e) Of course the last five years or so of the contract is just deferred money, but with Trout's extreme skillset and the fact he takes very good care of himself, he can be expected to be productive into his early 40s.

The actual figure I'm expecting to settle at is 15 years, $650 million, which is fairly well supported by the above arguments.

If we're talking about what I would ask for to sign an extension right now, if Trout really wants to sign an extension, I'd aim for a 10 year contract that gets him back out on the market at 32, at $40 million a year minus an appropriate discount to cover the arbitration years the Angels would be buying out. So it would be around 10 years, $350 million.

But I would advise Trout not to sign away a single year of free agency, to sign a contract covering only his team-controlled years and hit the market.

Followup question: What is the most you would offer Trout to sign an extension right now? I would offer 20 years, $400 million. I think Trout would be tempted to sign that if he has any inclination to play for anything other than every last possible dollar, and it would be likely to be a bargain for the Angels.

So...serious question. What do you ask for if you are repping Mike Trout?

6/120. Very quick back of the envelope that gets me there like this;

2015 - 2 million
2016 - 10
2017 - 18
2018-2020 - 30

That alone is #### you money and sets me and my family for life. That leaves me as a free agent heading into my age 29 season where I sign my 10/350 deal. It's enough to protect me from career ending injury or something like that and not so outrageous that the Angels would balk. At the same time I've still got one mid-prime kiss at the free agent pig.

That alone is #### you money and sets me and my family for life. That leaves me as a free agent heading into my age 29 season where I sign my 10/350 deal. It's enough to protect me from career ending injury or something like that and not so outrageous that the Angels would balk. At the same time I've still got one mid-prime kiss at the free agent pig.

Giving up the first three FA years of Mike Trout's career for $90M is a ludicrous underbid.

The first two years of that deal set you and your family up for life, but I get what you mean.

Signing away one free agent year might be the smartest move for Trout - if you're just signing away arb years they don't really have any incentive to give you much more than your expected arb numbers because hell, why not. Whereas if you give them the carrot of a free agency year you might be able to get a little more out of them out of the gate.

In reality my guess is that they will sign away two years out of general conservatism.

* The owners do screw over players when they are chattel before free agency.
* Some lucky players get to screw over the owners in deals like this.

This is pretty much how it works in most industries (and why it is futile to hold up the guys at the top as any sort of broad indicator of "fairness" in the industry). You have a few awesome/lucky/special guys at the top making insane money, more than they could really hope to spend (though they do), and then the masses at the bottom who have a tough time getting by (in baseball the minor leaguers, cup of coffee guys, etc.).

This is pretty much how it works in most industries (and why it is futile to hold up the guys at the top as any sort of broad indicator of "fairness" in the industry). You have a few awesome/lucky/special guys at the top making insane money, more than they could really hope to spend (though they do), and then the masses at the bottom who have a tough time getting by (in baseball the minor leaguers, cup of coffee guys, etc.).

This is the reason Silicon Valley is ageist when hiring developers. You get RCGs for pennies on the dollars for what you'd pay a 40 year old engineer with real work experience.

Signing away one free agent year might be the smartest move for Trout - if you're just signing away arb years they don't really have any incentive to give you much more than your expected arb numbers because hell, why not. Whereas if you give them the carrot of a free agency year you might be able to get a little more out of them out of the gate.

Giving up the first three FA years of Mike Trout's career for $90M is a ludicrous underbid.

A 6 year deal starting today is 2 years of free agency, so assuming 3 years/$60m for arb years, that's 2 years/90M for his first two FA years, which is ludicrous for the Angels, they'd be assuming 100% of risk and paying him his highest possible arb wards plus market value or higher on two FA years.

If team Trout wants to be a free agent in 6 years, a 6 year $100m deal is probably reasonable. Pay $50m for arb years, plus $25m a year for first 2 FA years. If Mike rips up a knee on a sprinkler while being chased through a backyard by a husband and misses a year and loses his explosiveness, the Angels will be happy not to be stuck with a 6 year albatross deal.

Trout isn't a free agent. The purpose of him signing a contract with the Angels is to eliminate risk, ie lock down as much money as possible now, without pushing the start of his first free agent deal past his prime years. If he's getting a $400m deal, it's on the open market in his late 20s. In the mean time, he doesn't want that husbands poorly maintained yard to lead to him making nearly zip on the disabled list next year and only $20m in arb awards the next three years.

Trout turns 23 this summer, so his thought process might be that taking a little less for fewer years now sets him up for a mega-megadeal right in the absolute prime of his career.

The mega-megadeal comes when a superstar enters the FA market in his mid 20s. Trout's age 26 & 27 seasons (his first two FA seasons) are the most valuable in his career. If you want a salary-scale busting mega contract (A-Rod's 1st deal), you have to hit FA as soon as possible.

This is the reason Silicon Valley is ageist when hiring developers. You get RCGs for pennies on the dollars for what you'd pay a 40 year old engineer with real work experience.

This is not true. There are no decent developers getting pennies on the dollar to write code in Silicon Valley - those guys are all in Russia or Ukraine.
Most 40 y.o. engineers are either totally completely unavailable (because they are awesome) or hidebound and have not adapted to 2010s programming skills / environment.

I just had a (young) guy with mediocre web programming (translation: not a Javascript ninja) experience not come in for a second interview because he accepted an offer for $100K/an in SF. This is a guy who almost flunked my programming test because he couldn't deal with a virtual box running linux.

BTW: if there are any competent engineers of any age looking to work in Silicon Valley for ca. $90K/year send me a pm. It's peanuts but Academia is much less stressful than the harsh realities of corporate life and layoffs.

Keeping Fister would have been a win now move, this deal obviously tells us Dombrowski knows the current team can't win, and he's building a winner for years 3 through 12 with the biggest DH in the league.

The mega-megadeal comes when a superstar enters the FA market in his mid 20s. Trout's age 26 & 27 seasons (his first two FA seasons) are the most valuable in his career. If you want a salary-scale busting mega contract (A-Rod's 1st deal), you have to hit FA as soon as possible.

Just to be on the same page ( and in case I'm getting his arb years wrong) this is what I believe his expectation is if he does not sign a deal with the Angels and goes year-to-year till free agency (and doesn't get hurt or decline or arrested for being too awesome with too many married women at the same time).

That's his best case scenario, and it's only $140M for next 6 years, though it also gets that free agent deal started the soonest.

I think locking down $100m now while still being able to get a 10 year $400m deal at age 28 is a pretty reasonable deal for him. It insures him against injury during the next 4 years, and the utility of $400m simply isn't 4x as much as $100m when you only have maybe $3m to your name, it's might not even be 2x.

In 2018 (first year of Trout free agency and first year Hamilton is off the books) the only guy the Angels currently will be owing money is Pujols at 27 million (then 28, 29 and 30). Their payroll high was 2012 at 151 million. Paying Trout what Miggy just got would leave them around 60 million for Trout + Pujols and leave ~150 million for the rest of the team (if they continue to raise payroll).

Not too bad really if they get 7 to 10 WAR between them and Trout could do that by himself. Time to start building the minor league system though.

That's his best case scenario, and it's only $140M for next 6 years, though it also gets that free agent deal started the soonest.

I'm not convinced $40M AAV is the best Trout can do. A lot depends on what he does over the next 4 years, but if he maintains his current level of production til he's FA eligible, he'll get more than $40M AAV.

That's a hell of a lot of money, and yeah -- not one of these deals (at least for the 30+ set) looks like they're a good idea... but man, Miggy can rake. He's chunky, he drinks, etc... but he can sure rake.

I'm not convinced $40M AAV is the best Trout can do. A lot depends on what he does over the next 4 years, but if he maintains his current level of production til he's FA eligible, he'll get more than $40M AAV.

At a $45M AAV he'd make $150M the next 6 years, at a $50M AAV he'd make $160M the next 6 years,

Use whichever number that feels right to you, and you get the maximum he can expect to make year to year over those 6 years. Whatever that number is has to be significantly discounted for a reasonable 6 year deal for the Angels. They should pay his average expectation, not his peak expectation, and further discounted since the contract forces them to assume multiyear risk. If those discounts aren't applied, the Angels are much better off with year to year.

It may be that Mike Trout is better off waiting for free agency because his market value is so huge and the massive long-term money he would lockdown would dwarf anything the angels could pay him for those six years. but you should also consider the following

a) That Mike Trout may not be a true talent 10 WAR player, regression says his first 2 years are so unprecedented in today's competitive environ that he should regress to "only" an 8-9 WAR player. That argument is that everything went well for him, hits dropped in, he was very healthy, his defensive stats may be overly optimistic etc. if that's true he might only get $35M AAV in FA.

B) 6 years is a long time. Baseball spending can never outpace GDP forever, otherwise all discretionary income will eventually need to be spent on professional sports. Besides the risk of injury or decline there's also risk in a retrenchment of baseball spending caused by economic issues. The US is headed for a default, borrowing at an unsustainable rate, unemployment still high, GDP growth weak, it's possible that the next TV deals may be shockingly low. Even if revenue growth hasn't stopped six years from now, if baseball executives see shortfalls on the horizon at that point, they will curb spending.